- . . . The move to ban the late-term procedure has been a centerpiece of the anti-abortion movement for eight years. If President Bush signs the measure, advocates for abortion rights say, it will be the first time that Congress has banned a safe medical procedure. . .
Safe for who?
I don’t intend to be grotesque but if you are familiar with the procedure being discussed here this is a horrible thing. Even many pro-choice folks out there I think are extremely bothered by this procedure. We’re talking about a viable human child who could live outside the mother’s womb, not some kind of blog of cells.
I’m all for women’s rights, particularly when the mother’s life is in danger but I don’t understand how partial birth abortion can be justified, certainly not for health reasons.
Could someone give me even one example of a woman’s life that was saved through this procedure? At this late stage in development, why can’t an emergency c-section be done if vaginal birth is not possible? I don’t understand why a C-section would be any more dangerous to the mother than the partial-birth abortion procedure.
If there is a legitimate medical reason why this procedure would be necessary then fine let it be legal under those rare occasions, but otherwise this procedure should be banned. Many good people of conscience will differ on the beginning point of life: some say it starts at onception, some say a later point like when the heart starts to beat (my own view), some say birth. I know we as a society are not at a point of agreement on this issue, but to me this kind of procedure is so close to the outer boundaries of even the most pro-choice conceptualization of the beginning of life (literally inches away from total birth) that I don’t see why we can’t say this is not acceptable.
Frankly it is repugnant to me that this is even an issue and that doctors would perform such a procedure. How we as a nation have become so casusal about killing is beyond me.